[Pulp-dev] Name uniqueness problem in Pulp 3 REST API

[Brian Bouterse]

I'm concerned if we don't make a change, here's the user experience I'm
worried about.

1. User A creates repo 'rhel7'
2. user B can't see repo 'rhel7' because of queryset scoping
3. user B goes to create 'rhel7'
4. user B is told 'rhel7' already exists

Users should be able to use simple names. I don't know what the answer is
to the import/export implementation conflict, but let's brainstorm some.
For the benefit of our users, I don't think that implementation should
interfere with this basic use.

Side note: from early on in Pulp3, pk's not names have been the primary
identifier. I'm unclear on how we got away from that.



On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 9:03 AM Matthias Dellweg <mdellweg at redhat.com>
wrote:

> I always understood the "lifting the uniqueness" as allowing to have
> the same name used for different resource types. So the new
> natrual_key (aka unique_together) would be ["name", "type"].
>
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 2:55 PM David Davis <daviddavis at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 8:42 AM Grant Gainey <ggainey at redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 8:14 AM Dennis Kliban <dkliban at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Does anyone else have an opinion? If not, I am going to start by
> writing a task to remove this name uniqueness constraint for repositories.
> >>
> >>
> >> Import/export relies on non-pulp_id-uniqueness to identify Things. I
> was assuming we were talking about adding pulp_type to the Repository
> uniqueness-constraint, so that a given name/type would be unique (which
> would require a single change to RepositoryResource)
> >>
> >> If we're talking about just removing the uniqueness-constraint
> altogether, then life gets a lot harder.
> >>
> >> G
> >> --
> >> Grant Gainey
> >> Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat System Management Engineering
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Pulp-dev mailing list
> >> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pulp-dev mailing list
> > Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20200721/477ec368/attachment.htm>